At least a couple of the post-Independence state governments had annual elections in their Houses. You can read their original Constitutions to find this out. It's what Paine wanted: "Let the assemblies be annual."
Given our current situation, limited government feels like an ancient concept. Term limits, and perhaps some mechanism to limit or control campaign financing by special interests, seem like obvious starting points. Given how most members of Congress are self absorbed and, in some cases, outright corrupt, it’s a long shot that Congress will impose either or both of those ideas. Heck, they won’t even consider legislation barring their abuse of inside information when investing in publicly traded companies. Term limits and campaign finance controls must come from the people. And, that will require a tremendous amount of (re)education. That’s what your Substack represents, Melody. It’s a solid start. Looking forward to the next installment.
A lifetime cap of, say, 30 years on the time you can have in Congress, the presidency, and vice-presidency combined seems a good idea for a Constitutional amendment. 30 years=5 Senate terms; it's almost 4 times as long as you can be president.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate your dissection. I've often thought how thigns would pan out if we have no campaign contributions allowed at all and term limits, and no lobbying allowed. But I understand that outlawing campaign money and lobbying would be free speech violations? Then perhaps we can put limits on campaign contributions. $1 a person (or corporation, according to the Supreme Court's ruling?), and community-based forums only for the people represented to speak to representatives. I wonder how these interventions would pan out?
At least a couple of the post-Independence state governments had annual elections in their Houses. You can read their original Constitutions to find this out. It's what Paine wanted: "Let the assemblies be annual."
I don’t think the founders contemplated elected positions as being full time paying gigs. Certainly not for a lifetime.
Given our current situation, limited government feels like an ancient concept. Term limits, and perhaps some mechanism to limit or control campaign financing by special interests, seem like obvious starting points. Given how most members of Congress are self absorbed and, in some cases, outright corrupt, it’s a long shot that Congress will impose either or both of those ideas. Heck, they won’t even consider legislation barring their abuse of inside information when investing in publicly traded companies. Term limits and campaign finance controls must come from the people. And, that will require a tremendous amount of (re)education. That’s what your Substack represents, Melody. It’s a solid start. Looking forward to the next installment.
Oops, I meant Julie, not Melody.
I think step one is educating the masses on how things are supposed to work
A lifetime cap of, say, 30 years on the time you can have in Congress, the presidency, and vice-presidency combined seems a good idea for a Constitutional amendment. 30 years=5 Senate terms; it's almost 4 times as long as you can be president.
Too much!
Thank you so much. I really appreciate your dissection. I've often thought how thigns would pan out if we have no campaign contributions allowed at all and term limits, and no lobbying allowed. But I understand that outlawing campaign money and lobbying would be free speech violations? Then perhaps we can put limits on campaign contributions. $1 a person (or corporation, according to the Supreme Court's ruling?), and community-based forums only for the people represented to speak to representatives. I wonder how these interventions would pan out?